Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/722

?02 ECONOMIC OONFEI{ENOE ideals and traditions there was nothing more to be said. As, however, a large [ody o! people were genuinely desirous o! going ahead, the religious and social objections should not be permitted to stand in the way It was his opinion that until something had been done in the matter of reconstituting hold- ings, agricultural progress would be impossible. Pa0P?,dS0R BALKBISHNA said that ths lecturer-had not noticed the diminishing productivity of, and increasing pressure on land. The trouble was all the greater in India on account of the growing ruralization of .?he country. This ruraliza- tion was a greater evil than the reduced size of hold/rigs. The law of equal partition could not be abolished in these days of democracy, and it had not done any harm in Fra?ee. PROFESSOR partition need introduced. The while the other JEVON8 not be estate he?rs pointed abolished should out that the law of equal nor need primogeniture be be held intact by one heir would be entitled to equal shares in the income. He had been informed that an enterprising deputy collector in a Government village in the United Provinces had carried out with the consent of the Board of Revenue a rearrangement of the holdings there to th? satisfaction of the villages. In ?he Punjab such work of redistribution was habitually done, so that the idea was not new in India. MR. N?N?WT? said that he would extend to the judicial hand of one heir only he would not cultivate it very care- fully; and such a state of things would cause much liti- gation. As to the idea of pre-emption, it could not be imported without the greatest difficulty into Hindu Law. PROFESSOR THOMPSON drew attention to co-operative societies started in some places in Germany to buy up small holdings, thus making new and compact farms of reasonabl? size. an old custom which had now afraid that if, o.n the other held without partition in the voluntary exchange. It was fallen into disuse. He was hand, the land were to be 'department the practice of the revenue department in not recognizing subdivision of land beyond a certain lnmt. Hindu law did not say that every piece of land should be partitioned--it only required a partition of the whole pro- perry of the deceased. PROFESSOR B, ANGASWAMI AIYANGAR drew attention to a custom in Tan?ore and Bellary o! consolidating holdings by